Alan Manuel Gloria:
> We could also use one of the later techniques I eventually settled on:
> have readers return a one-item list to mean "got a datum, here it is!"
> or an empty list to mean "didn't get a datum".  It complicates all
> actions, admittedly - now you have to unwrap the return value - but
> avoids special marker cons cells.

True.  But I think I have an even better approach - instead of calling it_expr 
in this special case, have it recurse to t_expr.  Then special indents "work 
like usual".  It's much simpler - just one more line to handle this special 
case, and we don't have to deal with any additional wrapping/unwrapping.  Below 
is the change.

So below is another tweak, which seems to be a more general approach.

--- David A. Wheeler

       (group_i=it_expr {$v = $group_i.v;} /* Ignore initial GROUP/scomment */
        | comment_eol
          (indent g_body=body {$v = $g_body.v;} /* Normal GROUP use */
-          | same (comment_eol same)* g_i=it_expr {$v = $g_i.v;} /* Plausible se
+          | same ( g_i=it_expr {$v = $g_i.v;} /* Plausible separator */
+                   /* Handle #!sweet EOL EOL t_expr */
+                   | comment_eol restart=t_expr {$v = $restart.v;} )

Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS,
MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current
with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft
MVPs and experts. SALE $99.99 this month only -- learn more at:
Readable-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to